About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
dollars loss, so to the degree that revenues come in lower than expected, the deficit would be larger, so there is some sensitivity here. >> and that's 134 million over five years? >> over five years, that's right. >> got it, thanks. >> so, going back to just in term of what compromises that 578 million dollars of revenue growth, the largest portion of that being our property tax which is our largest overall local revenue source, though business taxes and our hotel and sales taxes are as growing over that time period. this slide highlights for you wla the projected growth rates are in the plan, so you can see, you know, stronger growth rates in the early first two years and more moderate projections in the subsequent years. on the expenditure side, our -- the city's expenditures are projected to increase by 1.1 billion dollars over the five year period, that's about 25% growth, and the largest share of that is our salary and fringe benefit costs which are growing we're projecting 460 million dollars, there are a number of citywide cost increase that is are assumed in this plan, things lik
's a proposed 50 million dollar budget deficit from the department of public health, how does this proposed increase impact that because i'm assuming this is something based on what's been communicated to me around the department of public health, this is a consistent issue and so when we look at potential growth, are we looking at the fact that we're also absorbing the deficit or we will maybe need to absorb the deficit of the department? >> that's an excellent question, so included in that first number on the page, the 141.9 million dollars is our best projection of what that supplemental will cost the city next year, so that number includes the operating shortfall that they're experiencing this dwraoer and how that affects next year, so it's reflected here on the -- in the shortfall projection. >> so, which is why there's still -- >> 57 million dollar shortfall to start with. >> thank you. >> i think what's important to think about the health department, the department will be before you in two weeks to talk about this in more depth along with issues related to the supplemental, is that
and expenditures and then monitors our overall progress on the city's structural deficit. as you'll also remember, the five-year plan, it requires that we both present what that gap is and then propose financial strategies about how to eliminate the gap between revenues and expenditures. so, what i thought i would do is kind of walk through some high level assumption and then talk about in more detail about what's going on in the five-year financial outlook, so the plan itself assumes the budget that was adopted last year for 13-14 as the base case in most scenarios, so that means things like our capital funding is assumed at the level that it was adopted in the budget last year, inflation on materials and supplies on grants to non-profits that's assumed at the level it was adopted last year, the one major difference that i would highlight for you now and i'll mention it again later is how we're treating the prop h public education enrichment fund baseline in which we defer to contribution last year in the second year and our projection today assumes that that's fully funded. >> ms. howard, just
run into a deficit at the 2nd street project. if we work on the other funding sources for masonic, for example, the revenue bonds and cost reduction at a helps us get a little bit more towards the second street project but we also have to address the segment ability and the projects to be able to provide to the man sell project. that's what we are working on now. >> i want to reiterate a promise you made a few months ago that we intend to come to see you to fund all of those projects. the response has been very cooperative. the prop k update will help us a lot and a huge help is the masonic, the shear size of it is so big. the mta is aware of the size of it and hope we can find more funding. i hope we can spread the love around to receive the needed equity. >> great. i will hold you to that >> i did have a question. my understanding is that there is 2 million in transit planning funds that the mtc as granted to our planning department and wondering if we can request handout you the planning department is going to prioritize that? >> sure. the transportation authority is working on
of the problem, we need to be in this deficit, secondly, the assumption that there won't be any cost of doing business increases, it costs around 20%. years of double digit health care costs, no raises, the city keeps paying lip service to this issue you tell us we're important, let's do something about it in good faith, let's have the conversation and not shut the door. >> any members of the public who wish to comment on item number 1? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, at this point, i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> second. >> okay, second, we can do that without opposition. so moved. >> mr. clerk, can you please call item number 2. >> item number 2 is a hearing of city's reserve and set aside policy for fiscal year 2013-2014 and fiscal year 2014-2015. >> thank you, mr. clerk, the colleagues called for this hearing to try to get a sense of what we're facing in this upcoming budget cycle, i thought this would be a good topic to move forward and we have monique from the controller's office. >> mon naoek moody, deputy contro
in deficit this project has will be greater than $164.5 million. >> no. we are trying to keep it at this amount and so we had a recovery line item of $55 million that is why we are going to be talking if we can't get that number down we are rebidding in smaller package and that will be the recommendation. and again, it is a policy call on how much we want to have in reserves and contingencies. you can make the policy call to drop that number down, we are just rolling the dice as the director reiskin is attest to you. >> we will be coming back to the board on march 25th with a recommendation of what to do further with the steel bid after the team has had a chance to look at the bid more closely. >> we have only 7 minutes left at this point, before we lose quorum because two more of our members need to leave. so, i am not... we are not going to make it through the presentation, and so, i don't
however that we run at that deficit but the overall policy decision was this was a good thing to support and move forward and hence here we are. >> i would augment a couple of things. we felt that the gap in funding for us it's a relatively small investment to add an important recreation amenity. we lack skate board parks in the city and within our purview and something for us to absorb and the way that the funding mechanism is going to work with dpw funding the maintenance and in our accounts and i was informed there is an escalator that helps and interest on the lump sum and help close the gape a bit. i don't know if all the way but it will help so it turns out that the last amendment to change the way the funding is actually structured may result in more interest funds for us to help close the maintenance gap. >> commissioner bonilla. >> yes. i noticed that in this mou it does memorize the $66,000 operating expenses, but it doesn't memorialize the monies that rec and park will be responsible for. shouldn't that happen as part of this mou? >> for give me commissioner i don't follow
supervisor wiener, this ordinance was developed with the help of our staff to address a crucial deficit that we have in our procedures right now under chapter 31. chapter 31 of the administrative code governs all of our c-e-q-a review work in san francisco in addition to the c-e-q-a guidelines themselves, of course. our department remains very firm in the belief that the current lack of rules is really to no one's benefit around these appeals of negative declarations and categorical exemptions. we've had procedures codified for several years for environmental impact reports, but nothing codified for these other types of c-e-q-a documents. with the lack of procedures, as supervisor wiener mentioned, a city attorney opinion is needed to determine the timeliness of each and every appeal. no one, not the planner, not the clerk of the board, not the public, not the project sponsor can answer confidently when an appeal of the environmental document is or is not timely or allowed. since 2010, approximately a quarter of attempted exemption appeals were found to be inappropriately filed. that is
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)